Question: How can that work? Answer: It often doesn’t. We may find that, after crashing the internet with reciprocally enthusiastic emails for several weeks, when we finally get close to our online crush it’s loathing at first sight. Moreover, studies suggest that disappointment when face-to-face rises in direct proportion to how long we’ve been in other sorts of contact before meeting. In other words, whether our expectations are met depends almost entirely on how long we’ve been stacking up those expectations. The key number here, according to a recent study at the University of South Florida, is twenty-three days of email; after that, a suitor would have to be a deity-come-to-earth in order to measure up face-to-face.
It’s no coincidence that the site- and app-developers, having made their mark promoting a form of dating that was literally at a distance, are currently putting huge effort and budget into trying to reduce that distance and replicate the natural first step of crowded-room eye-catching. The current direction is not just for increased accessibility through profile pictures, audio and video, but for meet-ups, social evenings, dance classes and singles holidays, as well as apps that reveal which of those sitting in the same coffee bar are looking for love tonight. The litmus test will always be the ‘close enough to smell’ connection.
Distance benefits
That said, we’re wrong to be wholly wary of distance in a dating medium. For when it comes to thoughts and feelings, being apart can actually be more trustworthy and more revelatory. A study from Cornell University suggests we’re more likely to tell the truth in an email than in a voice conversation, because we know our words are literally down in black and white and can be checked. We’re also more likely to open up about significant thoughts and feelings online than face-to-face, because being less close to a prospective partner lowers the fear of rejection and leaves us more able to be authentic. The adrenalin rush that comes with the ping of ‘you’ve got mail’ stems not just from the potential of a new relationship but from the fact that the mail in question may contain deep emotional revelations – and the fact that we can respond in kind.
So here’s how to drive distance dating to best effect. Benefit from the larger numbers to spot possible candidates, but rather than staying with ‘winks’ or ‘likes’, move to email as quickly as possible. Then, at that email level, without getting over-demanding, dive below surface chat; ask serious questions, give serious answers, open up and let partners do the same. The deeper revelations will help gauge the deeper compatibility; if it’s there, move on to phoning and meeting – the gold standard of real life.
Proximity and chemistry
For contact makes everything tangible, not only physically but also emotionally. It adds in all the wonderful elements which circumvent our logical brain – there’s a reason why Eros is shown with an arrow of love which pierces straight to the heart. It’s almost a cliché, that total fixation of gaze and suspension of logical thought. Think Maria and Tony in West Side Story, stepping across the dance floor to touch each other. Think Marius and Cosette in Les Misérables, stopping in their tracks at the Luxembourg Gardens as their eyes meet for the first time.
This isn’t, contrary to what we might think, only about desire. It’s also that simple proximity matters hugely and biases hugely. Once there’s a basic attraction, the more time we spend close to someone, the more they will seem appealing, lovable, simply better. And the longer, more frequently, more regularly we spend time with them, the deeper the impact. A 1930s study of 5,000 American couples showed that 45 per cent of them had got together when living within a few blocks of each other, which – while not as surprising in the 1930s as it would be nowadays – is still remarkable.
A word here about ‘chemistry’, a factor so prized and persuasive that an entire online dating site is named after it. We’ve surely all experienced the sort of heartfelt mutual liking which leaves us feeling good about ourselves as well as about the other person. But it’s difficult to pin down – and research hasn’t shown – what exactly chemistry is, let alone what causes it. Basic biological urge? Complex psychological fit? And should we factor it into our choice strategy? Without chemistry most of us would hesitate to take things further with a partner, and many commentators feel its absence is a deal-breaker; the founder of eHarmony, Neil Clark Warren, states uncompromisingly that unless you feel the urge to kiss a prospective partner by the third date ‘you’re probably never going to feel it’. But other dating experts join with many traditional cultures in judging chemistry as no predictor of partnership success; perhaps the only thing that chemistry guarantees is chemistry. If so, then maybe instead of demanding it as a prerequisite for a relationship, we ought to be seeing it as a distracting delusion.
West Side Story. Love at first sight with score by Leonard Bernstein, words by Stephen Sondheim and choreography by Jerome Robbins.
Decision-making strategies
Which is why – unromantic though it may seem – it’s good to add in some more measurable, more strategic, less instinctive criteria for judging. It’s a wise exercise, as first meeting evolves into regular contact, to ask yourself what evidence you use as you form your opinion. (It may help to consider here how you judge not only partners, but anyone close – friends, colleagues, even family.)
Do you reach conclusions about a person because of . . .
. . . how they look?
. . . what they say?
. . . what they actually do in practice as opposed to what they say?
. . . what their general reputation is?
. . . what the important people in your life think about them?
. . . how you feel emotionally when you are with them?
. . . how you feel emotionally when they are not there but you are thinking about them?
. . . your sexual contact, if any?
. . . what their friends and family are like?
. . . how they interact with their friends, family, colleagues?
. . . how they interact with your friends, family, colleagues?
. . . their previous life in general?
. . . their relationship track-record in particular?
. . . what your gut reaction tells you?
Try dividing the elements into those you would always check, and those you’d never bother with because they seem unlinked, irrelevant, impossible to judge. Next, put the list in chronological order, according to those checks you pay attention to first, those you usually leave for later, and those you never attend to. Are there any surprises there?
Then think back. How has this decision-making strategy of yours actually played out? If less than perfectly, how could you improve? Perhaps you could prioritize the elements that until now you’ve left until later. Perhaps you could place less reliance on some kinds of evidence and more on others. Perhaps you need to extend, to use a wider range of checks and balances so your decision-making’s more effective.
An interesting thought about initial moments: one of my early psychology tutors suggested that the first experience we have of a partner provides a snapshot of our entire future relationship, sets the scene, writes the script for later plot development. So, if in their initial meeting Mary finds herself listening to Tom hammer on about his ex, she could find that Tom’s past dominates their future relationship. If in their initial meeting Tom and Mary find themselves agreeing easily about where to go to eat, they’re likely to have a cooperative time ahead.